The development of the concept of the patients informed consent

Giorgi Chakhvadze, Besarion Chakhvadze



Background: The European Convention on Human Rights is the key legal document that outlines the basic human rights and freedoms. It’s a comprehensive, universal document with broad regulation despite its laconic nature. Its context is quite broad and, among other things, it deals with a whole range of the so-called “medical rights”, such as the availability of medical care and its timeliness, including on specialized treatment and medical research, informed consent to medical procedures and its results, etc. The article reviews the history of the concept of informed consent in the light of various cases from the practice of different states. After that, it analyses Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the judicial practice of the European Court of Human Rights with regard to informed consent to medical intervention.
Method: The method of doctrinal research is used to make conclusions on the above-mentioned topics.
Conclusions: It is argued that article 8 of the convention encompasses “the right to be free from non-consensual medical treat-ment or examination, holding that “a compulsory medical intervention, even if it is of minor importance”, as well as the imposi-tion of a medical examination, constitute an interference with the right to private life”. Its shown that the ECHR is the powerful instrument to protect the medical rights of the patients and to ensure their informed consent to various medical procedures


European Convention; Human Rights; European Court; Informed consent; Medical intervention; Case-law

Full Text:



Stanley BM, Walters DJ, Maddern GJ. Informed consent: how much information is enough?. ANZ Journal of Surgery. 1998 Nov 1;68(11):788-91.

Manson JN. Legal briefs: malpractice: a new standard of care?. AANA journal. 1982 Jun;50(3):279.

Case of VC v. Slovakia. European Court of Human Rights. Former Section IV; (Application no. 18968/07) 8 November 2011.

Case of Balogh v. Hungary. European Court of Human Rights. Second Section. (Application no. 47940/99) Judgment of Strasbourg 20 July 2004

Murray B. Informed consent: what must a physician disclose to a patient?. Virtual Mentor. 2012 Jul 1;14(7):563.

Mary E. Schloendorff, Appellant, v. The Society of the New York Hospital, Respondent. 1914.

Pieter Van Dijk, G. J. H. Van (Godefridus J. H.) Hoof, G. J. H. Van Hoof, A. W. Heringa,. Theory & Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights. Kluwer law international. 2004.

Escobedo C, Guerrero J, Lujan G, Ramirez A, Serrano D. Ethical issues with informed consent. Elizabeth Zubiate. 2007;8:1-44.

The Nurenberg Code

Reamer FG. Eye on ethics: Developing a social media ethics policy. Social Work Today. 2011 Jul 1.

Salgo v. Leland Stanford. Civ. No. 17045. First Dist., Div. One. Oct. 22, 1957.

Canterbury v. Spence. July 20, 1972.

Cobbs v. Grant. S.F. No. 22887. Supreme Court of California. October 27, 1972.1972.

European Convention on Human Rights

Y.F. v. Turkey. ECtHR. 2003.

RR.v. Poland. ECtHR. 2011.

Bhabha J, Mirga A, Matache M. Realizing Roma Rights. University of Pennsylvania Press. 2017.

Durojaye E. Litigating the right to health in Africa. Routledge. 2015.

Tsirilis and Kouloumpas v. Greece. ECtHR. 1997.


  • There are currently no refbacks.


Become a REVIEWER 


ISSN: 2346-8491 (online)